ArticleBMC medical imaging2018
Standardized quality metric system for structural brain magnetic resonance images in multi-center neuroimaging study.
Article in BMC medical imaging, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- DSMRI: Domain Shift Analyzer for Multi-Center MRI Datasets.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMulti-site neuroimaging offer several benefits and poses tough challenges in the drug development process. Although MRI protocol and clinical guidelines developed to address these challenges recommend the use of good quality images, reliable assessment of image quality is hampered by the several shortcomings of existing techniques.
methodsGiven a test image two feature images are extracted. They are grayscale and contrast feature images. Four binary images are generated by setting four different global thresholds on the feature images. Image quality is predicted by measuring the structural similarity between appropriate pairs of binary images. The lower and upper limits of the quality index are 0 and 1. Quality prediction is based on four quality attributes; luminance contrast, texture, texture contrast and lightness.
resultsPerformance evaluation on test data from three multi-site clinical trials show good objective quality evaluation across MRI sequences, levels of distortion and quality attributes. Correlation with subjective evaluation by human observers is ≥ 0.6.
conclusionThe results are promising for the evaluation of MRI protocols, specifically the standardization of quality index, designed to overcome the challenges encountered in multi-site clinical trials.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.